My approach. The core is the engine. - page 127

New comment
 
Vasiliy Sokolov:

Peter, I'm sorry, but your work is not accepted, as what you've sent is a piece of hackwork.

...

No credit yet. Waiting for your revisions. And no 3D renderings until you figure it out!

Why are you badgering Peter? He's a free artist - whatever he wants, that's what he does. And if it's complicated and doesn't fit into his concept of thinking, then it's not wanted and not done, but substituted with something that's simple, wanted and done...

 
Artyom Trishkin:

Why are you shaming Pyotr? He's a free artist - whatever he wants, that's what he does. And if it's complicated and doesn't fit into his conception of thinking - then it's not wanted and not done, but substituted by something that's simple, wanted and done...

But he (Pyotr) wants to be in demand with his core-engine, taking orders and so on and so forth. Here Vassily has given him a little touch of reality.

And, Pyotr, how about the panel for Alexander?

 
Artyom Trishkin:

Why are you badgering Peter? He's a free artist - whatever he wants to do, that's what he does. And if it's complicated and doesn't fit into his conception of thinking, he doesn't want to do it, but he substitutes what he simply wants to do...

Gee, I sense your sly look :)

I'm spanking because the man stood up and claimed that anyone can create a graphical interface for his program based on his solution. He volunteered to prove it and offered to check his solution himself. I checked it and the result was a total nightmare. So, as they say, if you call yourself a rider, get in the truck;)

 
There is a big difference between solving imaginary problems and specific third-party tasks. It has been stated that this engine is just for the second case. In order to offer an effective and universal solution to this very second case, the solution must be based on basic programming paradigms. So far, I do not see the correct implementation of these paradigms in Peter's solution. On the contrary, specially formulated "simple" problem has exposed the whole tangle of internal problems and complete darkness of the whole proposed solution.
 
Vasiliy Sokolov:
There's a big difference between solving imaginary problems and specific third party tasks. It was stated that this engine is just for the second case. In order to provide effective and universal solution to this very second case, it is necessary that the solution should be based on basic programming paradigms. So far I don't see correct implementation of these paradigms in Peter's solution. On the contrary, specially formulated "simple" problem has exposed the whole tangle of internal problems and complete darkness of the whole proposed solution.

Well, you're a master of exaggeration...

All these "problems", are solved in one go. I just made the technology, and there was no one to test it with. And you're the one with a sword in your hand...)

All this is nonsense, except perhaps to limit the number of rows. I have not managed to solve that yet.


Orders are not closed, because I have forgotten how to check whether an order is open or closed. And you have created a "tragedy")).

 
Реter Konow:
Orders don't close because I forgot how to check if an order is open or closed. And you have created a "tragedy".))

PositionSelectByTicket

 
Konstantin Nikitin:

PositionSelectByTicket

Thank you.))

There's an ancient Greek tragedy going on here...)) It's even funny that he doesn't understand how easy it is to solve all the problems he stated. All except an unlimited number of table rows.

 
Реter Konow:

Well, you're a master of exaggeration...

...

Man, dude, do you really not understand what's going on or are you trying to cut corners this way?

In any panel the fundamental and most difficult thing is the display of consistency. If an order is open - it should be displayed, if it's not in the trade tab, it shouldn't be in the panel either. This is elementary and "very simple" conceptually. But to make it "very simple", the panel needs to be based on a state model. You have no such thing, but some local non-consistent curve database on strings stuffed into user objects:

And here you are now trying to prove to us that there is no problem, that it's all been sucked out of thin air. That non-displayable orders in your table are fine. That the orders that are in your table, but have long been closed in fact, are also normal. And in general, everything is so normal and good, except that the number of positions is limited to 20.

 
Vasiliy Sokolov:

I will clarify the task once again, so that there are no questions:

  1. The table is dynamic and shows the same orders as on the Trade tab. If there are no orders on the tab, your table does not show them either.
  2. The number of the displayed orders in your table should be anything. There are no limitations from above.
  3. Opening an order via the standard dialog window should cause the order to appear in your table. The closing of the order by standard means should result in the disappearance of the order in your table.
  4. A non-consistent state is not acceptable! If your table shows one thing, and the tab Trade shows another, this is an error.

I have to give you a thick skip for now. We're waiting for you to fix it. And no 3D renderings until you figure it out!

  1. To do this, the user must write a loop on the orders on ticks or timers, and check their ticks with the ticks written in the array. If there is no ticket in the array, it means that the order was just opened, and then the E_Main_form_1__PnL(OrderTicket(),OrderProfit()) must be called;
  2. This question is technically very complicated. So far the number of rows is limited in advance. But it can be much more than 20. We can do even 200.
  3. The order closing through the standard window, just like at opening, will be fixed in the loop on tick or timer event. And if there is a ticket in the array of open orders that no longer exists, you need to call the
    E_Main_form_1_CLOSE_ROW___Orders_table(ticket);

4. if these order loops are written correctly, the table will work correctly.

I have simply forgotten how to handle orders correctly, so I have not implemented this mechanism correctly. Therefore, the table did not work correctly.

But this does not mean that the dynamic table itself does not work.

 
Реter Konow:

Thank you.))

There's an ancient Greek tragedy going on here...) It's even funny that he doesn't understand how easy it is to solve all the problems he stated. All except an unlimited number of table rows.

I just feel a big pile of negligence in you, in your code and everything you do, sort of for people, but as soon as it comes to specifics, bullshit starts. Do one thing that is small but good and of high quality. So you say that everything is easy to solve, elementary. But for some reason you have made a solution, in which there is nothing. What prevented you from doing all these simple chips in a fortnight?

Sorry for the negativity. It's just that you disappointed me. I was hoping to see more and better. Please fix your demo. Make it good, high quality, according to the request and without these "it is elementary, it needs a tweak here". Offer a solution out of the box, which could be protested.

1...120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134...184
New comment